Yesterday public health minister Anna Soubry and Andrew Black, head of tobacco policy at the Department of Health, were summoned to attend a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee which scrutinises draft EU legislation on behalf of the House of Commons.

According to its website, the Committee assesses which proposals are of particular political or legal importance. It then draws these proposals to the attention of the House through weekly Committee Reports and by recommending some draft legislation for debate.

Members (MPs) were unhappy they hadn't been given the opportunity to scrutinise draft proposals to revise the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). Reading between the lines, they were furious.

Actually, you don't even have to read between the lines: Michael Connarty (who, despite being a Labourite, is superb in this hearing) stated that he was furious.

Anyway Simon's summation of the case is as follows:

At yesterday's meeting chairman Bill Cash said they wanted to explore Anna Soubry's extraordinary decision to override scrutiny of the TPD, choosing instead to go ahead and agree a general response to the Directive at a [European] Health Council meeting in Luxembourg on June 21.

"We take a decision to override scrutiny very seriously indeed, especially when it concerns a proposal of such importance,” he admonished her.

Incredibly, it emerged there had been no correspondence between Soubry and the Scrutiny Committee for six months between January and June 2013. Oddly enough, this is the very period when the Committee would have been expected to scrutinise the draft TPD which was published in December 2012.

Minutes of yesterday's Scrutiny Committee meeting won't be published until next week but I have read a summary of the meeting and what appears to have happened is this:

Rapidly approaching the end of Ireland's six-month presidency of the European Council, the DH decided it had to act fast to help move the Directive closer to implementation.

Officials (and Soubry) decided there was no time for proper scrutiny of a Directive that will affect millions of consumers in Britain, not to mention thousands of small businesses.

So they asked for a waiver from the scrutiny committees in both Houses of Parliament (Lords and Commons). The Lords agreed but the Commons Scrutiny Committee said no.

Concerned that any delay might delay the revised TPD (which includes plans to ban menthol cigarettes and restrict pack sizes) or tie the UK government's hands on plain packaging, Soubry and Black travelled to Luxembourg determined, it seems, to support the draft TPD regardless of any concerns elected members of parliament may have had.

If I am reading this correctly, they failed even to seek clearance from other government departments.

Before we look at this further, let us remind ourselves of five things that were not in the Coalition Manifesto:

So, to return to Anna Soubry and her quite deliberate decision to bypass Parliamentary Standing Orders...

Ms Soubry's reason for doing so was, apparently, "article 24" which—according to her—would have stopped member states introducing plain packages for cigarettes (and other measures).

And the egregious Soubry then said that she had to take a position—against all protocol—in order to preserve the "sovereignty" of the UK government!

So, here is my summary: this repulsive little liar decided that the Tobacco Products Directive simply did not allow enough scope for the UK government to be even more fascist than the TPD itself; as such, she decided to deny scrutiny of the Directive, override democratic process, because she "really believed" that if the TPD was not passed at that moment, then it would be dropped "for a very long time".

Even though the measures that the TPD introduce were never in either the Conservative or Coalition Manifesto.

Such as the fact—revealed when Soubry was challenged as to how important the UK's vote was—that the Tobacco Products Directive went through the Council of Ministers without there even being a vote. As I understand it, these ministers just sat around, had a bit of negotiation and then just cosily decided that they were all happy enough to just let this pass.

As Simon Clark says:

It's scandalous. So much for Parliament. So much for open and democratic government.

Quite.

Now we know how law-making is handled in the EU: a privileged bunch of our betters just sit around, making far-reaching decisions about our lives—and all without even the fig-leaf accountability of allowing us plebs to see who voted for what.

And so Ms Soubry:

colluded with foreign powers to pass through a Directive that will force the UK Parliament to enact legislation…

… that was not in her government's manifesto (and which, therefore, no one in this coutry voted for);

in doing so she ignored one of the most fundamental of our Parliament's Standing Orders…

… because she wanted to leave the field open for the government to impose even more draconian legislation that was not in their manifesto;

and her justification for doing all of this is that she was, in fact, "defending the sovereignty" of the UK Parliament.

I hope that the arrogant, mendacious little shit is raked over the coals for this episode.

7 comments:

Quite frankling Soubry & Black are a pair of Quislings.As such they should be treated like the vermin they are!This is a scandal on a par with B-Liar's dodgy dossier but as with that we won't see the MSN doing any digging.

As some people pointed out over the NHS death scandal, nowadays it always seems to be a certain type of arrogant woman who have worked their way into public life who consider themselves above due process and accountability.

Out last night it was funny when a couple of cigarette saleswomen walked into the bar actually carrying cigarette machines held up by a strap over their shoulders.

I don't know what the procedures of the Commons are, but I would imagine that the committee should report this matter to the speaker of the HoC, who should create merry hell. If the HoC decided some years ago that matters concerning the implementation of TREATIES (which this is) must be discussed by the committee, then it must be so. The UK must abort the decisions made by Soubry and insist that the EU start the whole process again from scratch.

This is disgusting,! What chance do we have with people like her standing up for us! She obviously does not give a toss and just waffled most of the time like so many of them do. The other video I watched one with her in it she did not even know that the VAping products had gone through dehhhh which shows she was not standing up for us and is not in the least bit interested she should be sacked! .l I'm fuming! Now guess i will be smoking again and will fly to countries to get my cigerettes so the EU do not get a penny from me on smoking and I refuse to buy what ever over priced vaping equipment they bring out and will refuse to buy their disgusting flavour e liquids! It's all down to her not doing her job properly and if I get any smoking related diseases later on for her not making sure vaping was taken out of this directive ? And this had been proved to be a much safer product and dehhh it's not even got tobacco in it !,,, I will sue her as I am not willing to pay high prices for vaping which do not even allow the nicotine levels I need to keep of the cigerettes. So many small business will fall because the vaping directive leaving the market open only to big companies and we know who will get the market for it! The big tobacco companies and the pharmaceutical companies as no other will be able to afford the tests and red tape costs.. These companies have made far too much from our addiction as it is! This is the EU lining their own pockets and us having no strong enough government in UK standing up for us.. Seems to me the reason they let this slip through is they don't give a damn about 1. our health 2. Loads of small companies going bust. 3. That they will profit much more from pharma and tobacco companies getting market as VApe machines will be triple if not more than price due to test costs and red tape which the EU will highly benefit from now ,but also not such good Vaping equipment ! their will probably only be about 10 available and probably be like the ones they sell everywhere at moment ie tescos which are I have read that the vaping products available in countries that have started the directive are not happy as I've seen on forums to countries who have started this directive all the ejuices that are available taste disgusting and expensive and only buy in small amounts ! .. So this will open up a black market on these products! .. If something like this slips through that uk can not stop then what will they put on us next! Week kettles are next on line so if you want a quick cuppa soon forget it! Same as vacuum cleaners only half speed, they are also stopping creosote for agricultural uses , and lots more ! And UK is not able or just can not be bothered to stop anything they do! Is their Any proof anywhere ? that UK has actually managed to opt out of an EU directive?